Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > sci.logic > #253965

Re: "Without loss of generality" may not be formalizable

Show all headers | View raw

I have a new theory about the Generalized Drinker Paradox.
Maybe its only a change in letter, from small to capital letter:

WLOG = Without Loss of Generality
wLOG = With Loss of Generality

BTW: Here is a 2OGeneralizedGeneralizedGeneralizedDrinkerParadox,
we went down from the real line, to yet something smaller, the
boolean domain:

/* propositional second order generalized generalized generalized drinker paradox,
   abbreviated 2OGeneralizedGeneralizedGeneralizedDrinkerParadox */
EXIST(x):[[x <=> s] => Q(x,s)]]

Mild Shock schrieb am Sonntag, 4. Juni 2023 um 21:48:10 UTC+2:
> I guess the generalized drinker paradox thus uses extraordinary logic.
> Dan Christensen schrieb am Montag, 21. November 2022 um 21:18:40 UTC+1: 
> > It seems unlikely that the without-loss-of-generality claim can be justified using the ordinary rules of logic found in most math textbooks as has been used here.

Back to sci.logic | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: "Without loss of generality" may not be formalizable Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-04 12:48 -0700
  Re: "Without loss of generality" may not be formalizable Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-05 03:10 -0700
    Re: "Without loss of generality" may not be formalizable Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-05 03:14 -0700

csiph-web